They say that two days later, the Head of the Legal Unit at the Hospital communicated with the Coordinator of the Board for the Protection of Children and Adolescents to request the opinion of the "competent authority or institution" to carry out the medical procedure recommended in order to "safeguard the life of the mother." They add that on April 9, 2013, the Board for the Protection of Children and Adolescents of San Salvador ruled on the request saying that it lacked authority in that area. It maintained, however, that there was a "possible risk and threat to the rights of the unborn child" so that it was obliged to uphold those rights and to notify the PGR so that the latter could appoint a state attorney to represent and defend the interests of the unborn child. The petitioners point out that, on that same day, Beatriz went to an appointment with the Director of the Hospital, who told her they could not act until one of the entities consulted pronounced on the matter. They say that the next day the Ancillary Prosecuting Attorney of San Salvador of the PGR sent a communication to the Minister of Health telling her that there would be no opposition to carrying out the procedure that health professionals considered pertinent and best in terms of safeguarding Beatriz's life. 4. They assert that on April 12, 2013, the Medical Committee at the Hospital agreed to terminate the pregnancy on the grounds that in the short and medium term there was no possibility of the fetus surviving, that Beatriz's underlying illnesses would grow worse as pregnancy progressed, and that the duration of the pregnancy at that time (less than 20 weeks) meant that there was less risk of maternal health complications, given Beatriz's medical history and circumstances. They add that, despite the above, the Committee said it was subject to the law and as professionals of the Hospital they could not break the law. They say that on April 18, 2013, upon returning to the Hospital, the alleged victim was threatened and harassed by hospital personnel, due to the presentation of an action for enforcement of rights (recurso de amparo). A complaint was therefore filed with the Minister of Health. The petitioners also state that Beatriz told the Hospital psychologist that she had had suicidal thoughts and that the psychologist's only response had been to talk about God and give her religious books to read. They maintain that, on May 22, 2013, doctors at the hospital and the Head of the hospital's Perinatology Unit met and considered proposing to the Medical Committee that they would not perform surgery for the time being and that they planned to end the pregnancy at 28 weeks when the surgical risks would be lower. 5. As regards the judicial actions brought on account of the facts reported, the petitioners say that Beatriz's representative filed an action for enforcement of rights on April 11, 2013 with the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (hereinafter "SC-CSJ") against the Director, the Head of the Legal Unit and the Head of the Perinatology Unit of the Hospital requesting that an order be given to operate on Beatriz immediately and save her life, given the Hospital's refusal to interrupt the pregnancy due to the criminal consequences they might suffer because of the absolute ban on abortions in El Salvador. They state that on April 17, 2013, the SC-CSJ admitted the action for processing and issued a precautionary measure to ensure that the respondent authorities guaranteed Beatriz's life and health, by providing the necessary and best treatment for the preservation of those rights, while the matter was being processed. 6. Given the time that had elapsed without Beatriz's pregnancy being interrupted, on April 18, 2013, the petitioning organizations requested that the IACHR grant precautionary measures, which it did on April 29, 2013. Since the precautionary measure granted had no effect on the situation, on May 20, 2013 they asked the IACHR to apply for provisional measures with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter "I/A Court H.R."). They add that the SC-CSJ issued a judgment on May 28, 2013 and gave notice of it the following day (May 29), rejecting the action because it considered that the medical personnel had guaranteed Beatriz's rights to health and life by admitting her, monitoring her state of health, and providing the medicines needed to stabilize her condition and therefore concluded that the respondent authorities had not committed the omission they had been accused of. The SC-CSJ maintained that in El Salvador there is an absolute ban on practicing abortion because it contravenes the constitutional protection of the human being from the moment of conception, and it argue that the rights of the mother cannot be given precedence over those of the child to be born (nasciturus) nor vice-versa, and that it was exclusively up to the medical professionals to determine the circumstances and timing for medical intervention as it was they who had to take on the risks associated with the exercise of the medical profession and decide what was clinically best for guaranteeing both the life of the mother and of the nasciturus. 3